AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
College Football News, Rumor & Humor
- Thread starter Darth Snow
- Start date
Have you figured out that this is a made for TV event and thats it?
It’s going to be fun when there is controversy over which Big 12 team gets in between the CG loser with a 10-3 record and the 10-2 team that didn’t play in the CG.
General high school recruiting check in. https://buffsblog.com/colorado-football-high-school-recruiting-hot-board-offense-v3-0/
Wrote this post in January:
You all made fun of this idea that I had and now once an SEC Athletic Department does it for real, does that still make it stupid.
We should do the same thing in order to fully unlock the Prime Effect
How Kentucky’s New LLC Will Change the Business of College Sports - Boardroom
The decision by Kentucky to operate its athletic department as an LLC could provide a model that other schools use in this new era.
boardroom.tv
Did anyone tell you it wasn't a feasible thing to do?Wrote this post in January:
You all made fun of this idea that I had and now once an SEC Athletic Department does it for real, does that still make it stupid.
We should do the same thing in order to fully unlock the Prime Effect
How Kentucky’s New LLC Will Change the Business of College Sports - Boardroom
The decision by Kentucky to operate its athletic department as an LLC could provide a model that other schools use in this new era.
Just because someone did it doesn't mean it was a good idea. Not sure why Kentucky making this decision equals you thinking it justifies you taking a victory lap. Besides, most of the criticism people have has been about how it fundamentally changes college football in a way we fans don't like. Even if it's a good financial and/or competitive move doesn't mean it is something people should support.
Nik
My argument was the fundamental structure of Athletic Departments from in-house poorly managed Amateur Sports Programs to dynamic Public-Private entities that have the modern flexibility to act and perform as needed in this changing age. I hate where CFB is going because it appears that everyone wants to entrench all the bad things, such as inequality amongst "Blue Bloods" like that is a good thing, or adding too many 3rd parties to the party that do nothing but SUCK cash and add an element of selfish operator.
Borrowing money, having lines of credit, hiring and firing quicker, etc is valuable
I also think that it is somewhat completely stupid for the University of Colorado that is built for higher education would be writing public checks to young athletes that may or may not even be interested in getting a degree from CU or adding significant educational or research benefit to the operation
I am a big fan of these LLC's or Corporations being setup as PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATIONS with specific public benefits and charters that make education, innovation, and other things important to the operation.
Not a victory lap, just want to knock down the typical AllBuffs mockery
EDIT:
These types of things are similar to Hospitals, Dormitories, the new Hotel near campus, and any other project/entity that benefits from the University Brand and IP along with outside corporate innovation. We shall see
I thought I was in the Pillow Talk thread for a minute.
This bull**** lets TV force a rematch between Alabama and Georgia, Michigan and tOSU. Possibly even a really stupid third meeting. Whatever TV comes up with it will be big name matches/rematches.
Medford M.
Well-Known Member
SOS doesn’t matter if you lose games…
BYU don’t care. The church will include the settlement in his new NIL deal
I would be inclined to agree but then I remember when they kicked Brandon Davies off the team when they were like a top 5 team heading into March
So the 12 team CFP goes to straight seeding 1-12 with top 4 getting the byes instead of the 4 highest conference champs. The top 5 conference champs still make the playoff but Boise will no longer get a Bye (neither will the Big 12 champ most likely).
On one hand, this is how it should work from a seeding standpoint. OTOH, the Conference Championship Games have been devalued even further and it's very unlikely the Big 12 will ever get a Bye.
However, this is almost assuredly only a one year change as it will likely go to 16 teams with no byes for the 26-27 season.
On one hand, this is how it should work from a seeding standpoint. OTOH, the Conference Championship Games have been devalued even further and it's very unlikely the Big 12 will ever get a Bye.
However, this is almost assuredly only a one year change as it will likely go to 16 teams with no byes for the 26-27 season.
It's a conundrum. Let's play out a hypothetical where CU goes 11-1 and wins the Big 12 regular season title. The team is sitting there at #9 in the latest committee rankings. If the opponent in the B12C game was 9-3 and ranked #21 and there's a 10-2 B12 team ranked at #13 which finished 3rd, should our Buffs decline to play in the game?
Unless you’re Bama, amirite?
But but but…he’s Jewish
If the Big 12 were smart they’d just say “F the CCG” since the winner isn’t getting an autobid anyway. Set their best team up for success and seeding.
I think the committee stated last year that they wouldn’t punish CCG losers if this type of scenario played out
Big 12 champ still gets an auto bid (assuming two G5 champs arent ranked higher) but there’s just no bye for the conference champs
But, then what happens to the #21 and #13 teams?
#9 loses to #21.
#9 doesn't get "punished," so presumably they keep a #9 seed.
Does #13 get "punished," because #21 now has an autobid in?
Or, do we set the rankings going into championship weekend, and if there are any upsets from teams outside the playoff, we start at the bottom and work our way up, so #16 is now out?
So then return to the scenario:
#9 plays #21 in the championship game, and instead the third B12 team being #13, they're #16. #21 upsets #9, earns an autobid. There's no way #16 didn't just get ****ed.
Someone is going to get "punished" if a team outside the top 16 gets an upset win in a CCG that has an autobid. To be honest, I almost feel like the only team that should get punished is the one that lost to them.
And then of course we're back to nik's original question, should #9 decline to play in the CCG?
I think that there's a strong chance the committee went to Sankey this past season and said, "We wish Clemson wouldn't have made a mess of this by bearing SMU, and that Bama would have handled their **** against Oklahoma, but it will just look too bad if we put them in over SMU. So, what do want to change for next year?"
This is a logical move but as you pointed out the negative is that it de-emphasizes the CCG's for the case where both participants are ranked high enough that both the winner and loser will be in the CFP regardless. However in that case they're likely playing for a first round bye. This change still doesn't fix the issue of how they select the teams for the CFP.
As for some of the 16-team proposals I've seen, those are just so bad.
What’s bad about 16 team proposals? The autobids?
Yes, guaranteed 8 teams, or half the field, from the Big1G and the SEC. Regardless of what the season brings. The ACC and Big 12 get 4 total. Not arguing for more for the Big12 and ACC but there is zero reason to guarantee 8 spots to those 2 conferences. Let them earn it and not just based on past performance. Just garbage
It’d be interesting to see how it would have shaken out the past 5 years or so in terms of how many B1G and SEC team ended up in the top 16. Something tells me they’d be getting 8 between the two of them anyways, but they wanted to guarantee that they were going to be on equal footing with each other and not have one get 5 and the other get 3 or something.
Probably so but why be afraid of earning it? That is my only gripe with the 16 teams. If you are that good, the conferences should not need the guarantee. It only serves to reinforce that they believe they might not be as strong on the field in the future.